d-lisp

A few years ago I thought "how smart I am" when I built a smart TV out of a dumb TV, old computer, small server and light apk on my phone to control the newly created dumb-smart-tv, but in fact even this toy project mediately depends on a the linux kernel, drivers, android and a lot of code I cannot even hope to have the possibility to read in my lifetime. The true smart solution would be to have some kind of system on chip that would send via hdmi the proper signal from a source fetched by a sort of curl but with streaming. But then I would expect the source itself to rely on lean software; something like netflix but instead of a web app you would just have some catalog (a printed one?) of the available routes or codes you can send (like a telephone number) to ask for the emission of bytes to your hardware. But then I would ditch software, you would just compose a number on an old analogue phone and plug the video cable in the enclosure to receive your movie, while listening to the audio via the phone speaker.

Not at all, these "unintended" emotions can be ignored for the most part. But if you ask me, then google is in my foreigner ear one of the stupidest brand name I know of due to its phonetical ressemblance with some words from my native tongue.

Yes, but that's very rare (50-70 cases per year in france, which has a population of about 66 mil. (and a lot of them eat cheese)).

In a sense, chess pieces can already perceived as geometric attack directions. After too much chess I feel frightened by the salt shaker.

I only buy old cheese because it is more intense. It is rather hard to perform the "affinage" of the cheese without a controlled environment (Roquefort is "affiné" in natural caves in which you have several exits that you can open or close depending on the temperature and hygrometry of the caves, that's part of the AOP).

I never got sick eating cheese, but that's actually possible Salmonella, Listeria, E.Coli, Tick-borne encephalitis virus (and you could die from it, in rare occasions).

Where do you reside ?

You probably mean "c'est fait par du monde" or maybe that's some way of mocking french language that I am not aware of !?

Replace X with Y since X is a thing.

I may be biased but whenever I search something I go to whatever website that has an authority on X. When I don't know I who has authority on X I search for "recommendations about X", or I go to the website in charge of X. The only problem I encounter generally and recurrently is not js being an obstacle to find information but rather badly written anti-content.

Well, most of the websites that proposes an experience are often rather lacking information-wise, no ? Don't you know of any website that reads like simple text ?

Honestly, I don't understand what you're referring to: are you intentionally visiting websites "you hate" ? I mean, there are a lot of good websites out of here that aren't proposing an experience and that allows you to read text properly, no ?

That's false, OP talks about that, many people wish the web to be static only and many people wants to be able to read pages "without js" and complain about the fact that they cannot read a page without js.

I didn't express myself as "the web designer" nor I implied that I wished to share experiences with you. What I meant is that I can share experiences to my friends via the browser, which act as a kind of a simple prototyping platform.

I want the power to create experiences for some people I know, in a niche setting, without intentionally inviting anyone else.

In a sense OP wants E-ink screens and org/vimwiki/markdown. Styling is where the problem it claims to criticize begins; if you want a truly accessible hypertext book, then you don't need styling, the user should be in charge of this, and the default theme would be whatever easily readable font, black on white, headings 36pt bold, paragraphs 14pt regular, every elements as blocks. Epub, in usage, is actually a cool format and I almost prefer this type of "browsing" experience than what websites proposes.

Or maybe OP wants higher level CSS and HTML, and this is a problem because this leads to the invention of a new language with yet another complex ontology that claims to be "simpler than its lower level counterpart" but is not.

   Of course you could create some markdown with basic styling options, but I am pretty sure learning basic html and css is not that more complex than learning that specific markdown and how to operate it to finally get a website served on a specific server.

Web and styling became complex exactly when occurred the encounter between what was styling on the web in the 2000s, the emergence of the nowadays variety of devices that are able to browse it and the actual way people interacted with smartphones.

Today our browsers are almost OSes and it's almost like the complexity of what you can share with them is superior than the complexity of you could create on a 1990 pc natively. I mean, you can run godot engine on your browser : you can develop prototypes of projects with your friends just for fun, create your own private platform for communicating with people you like.

I notice a lot of hate toward JS, but honestly when I first stumbled upon it I felt like a dream came true; it gives you the power to create experiences and share them almost effortlessly, and the fact that bigTechs decided to make boring websites on crazy over-engineered frameworks doesn't change anything to this.

Is this like if some words (most of them) are "failed" ? I mean, like if someone was mincing his words or obfuscating them or being drunk and being lazy to articulate ?

The occasional "not failed" words keeps it on the thin line of being understandable.

Can you explain what you find bad about js ? I use typescript and I am honestly finding it awesome; and I am the type of person that coded in lisp for a long time.

We have lambdas, flexible structures, FP methods (map, filter, reduce...), can express recursion easily, we have ternary operators, array and object destructuring (const {a,b,...rest}=init()). We have a nice way to deal with asynchronicity. We have some kind of class system. And thanks to typescript we have a really great and expressive type system that's very cool and eases the job a lot.

Is this valid english (am not native) ?

Written French grammar is particularly good at expressing nuances due to the expression of the variety of "times" and tenses.

J'aimais and j'aimai (imparfait and passé simple) are both past but

the first expresses "I loved (duration, action being performed in the past)" and the latter "I loved (instant, action completed)".

Je finissais (imparfait) = I was completing (some stuff), je finis (passé simple) = I completed.

Also

Je marcherais (conditionnel présent) = I would walk, (possible)

Je marcherai (futur) = I will walk (true)

(Maybe the ability to express a nuance discreetly is a sort of elegance)

You could say " this is spaghetti code" but je marche, je marchai, je marchais, je marcherai, je marcherais respects some kind of nearly mathematical rules that allows me to feel situations.

March - e

March - ai

March - ais

Marcher - ai

Marcher - ais

J'ai marché, j'avais marché, j'eus marché, j'aurais marché, j'aurai marché express a lot of different things based on the different forms of "to have".

English has this kind of complexity too : I have walked, I had walked, I did walk, I will walk, I will have walked, I did have walked...

I am not arguing about the possibility of nuances here but rather about the means by which they are expressed, of course.

Yes you can use this name for your new Techno EP or Garage Rock band

Then you have symbolic parasites ?

Thought hold-up also ?

Neuralink also claims to be able to help people with motion related disabilities, which is at least some good thing.

Not reading a whole page, without noticing it, by effectively looking at it and letting your eyes run through its line while thinking about something completely different is peak literature.

Finally Platon's "King" is an AI.

Yes, and only politicians that do truly know to lie are elected.

Twenty years ago I couldn't even imagine that I would find smartphones to be somewhat boring. Twenty years ago, I was finding GameBoy color to be the coolest stuff in the world.

PsOne's Tomb Raider seemed hi-res, Hi-res didn't even exist, I thought we were at the peak of gaming.

Apple Pro One wants to make computers spatial, we find telepathy cool.

I would love to code by the sole action of my mind while running in the forest or scuba diving, 10 seconds here and there.

I would love to receive a drawing made in the mind of someone else, to see it appear in front of me and to be able to share it with others around me : "-Hey, look at what Julia did."

And again, that's exactly what happens already but in a more immediate manner; replace smartphone with mind, screen with environment and you're in that futuristic world.

It feels like this is cool because of novelty, but then wouldn't it be cool to go back to punching code on cards, or writing lines with ed on a terminal ?

A few years ago I went from music production in a DAW to ten synthesizers (70-84 era) with a tape machine : way cooler, never going back.

But do I produce as fast as before ?

Nope

Here is what I think : I want the possibility of writing code with my mind and virtual floating screens only because of _one thing_ (apart from the initial first few days of new=cool).

I want this to work less, or more exactly to be less at work.

But you know how it will be; you will be asked to produce more work. And this will become mandatory to work by the sole power of your mind, with 5 or 6 virtual screens around you.

And that's all, until a new invention seems cool to you.

When I read this, some kind of interferences/ images are parasitizing my mind; drawn cartoon with colors of the princess in Aladdin, the Disney one; cinematic/documentary video of a cobra in the desert that rises up its head.

Sometimes it's voices, sometimes it's music; what parasites lives in the mind of someone that has aphantasia ? How do you think when solving a mathematical problem ? How do you design an algorithm ?

That's a long time I'm out of school. The truth is you should read books about subjects you're interested in to solve a lack of understanding on one subject, and from there teach yourself anything you want, if you were in my situation. What I did is taking the highest level course I could find on X subject, and trying to understand from other lower level sources the high level concepts I couldn't understand from intuition by the sole reading of the high level syllabus.

My student life has been an awful boring existence because of number 2. There was nothing more frustrating than going to school. A few sentences were enough for me to understand concepts that were explained during several weeks.

This is why the product of philosophy cannot be valuable compared to a random opinion outside of the context of a system.

Nevertheless the activity of speculating about the possible paths a system (such as science) can take regarding a specific problem is of great importance, that's probably what Russel meant by this text.